Solution to Choose Location

[duncan_disorderly]

If you are worried that your players are too limitied in their choice of CM try running a session or two with a house rule that they can't choose the same CM twice in a row, or can't reuse it until they have used 2 or 3 different ones.
This needn't be part of a "regular" game - run a "one off" Arena combat game, and justify the house rule as needing to provide a varied and interesting spectacle for the audience.

Hopefully this experience will teach them how the other manouvers work and might lead to more variety in the regular game... On the other hand if it teaches them that "Choose Location - Head" is always the best way of ending a combat in your game then you may need to have your foes invest in helmets, or set up situations where they need to be able to interrogate their foes once they have defeated them...

If players feel that the most important thing in any combat is killing the enemy as quickly as possible, then they will attempt to pick a tactic that achieves this aim. If you want to emphasise an "interesting description" of the fight then you need to reward this (eg by giving HP for descriptive moves).

 

[RosenMcStern]

Or send in a horde of goblins with high Resilience (it would be very ineffective to use repeated Choose Location against them), and have THEM use trip and disarm to defeat the adventurers - this will teach them how to fight in RuneQuest II.

 

[taxboy]

Or send in a horde of goblins with high Resilience (it would be very ineffective to use repeated Choose Location against them), and have THEM use trip and disarm to defeat the adventurers - this will teach them how to fight in RuneQuest II.

Won't help if the goblin head is chopped off....

 

[taxboy]

Believe it or not, this design technique is more realistic and greatly speeds up combat. If the alternative (calling a shot affects your chances to hit) sounds more sensible to you, it is just because most other games use it.

Wow, pretty awesome how you can read my mind and tell me why I think something is more sensible....thought that skill was reserved for my wife.

I see what you are getting at about the fortune in the middle stuff and I could swallow it for melee, I.e. If your opponent is good or no opening you have to hit where you can, but what about missle fire...?

 

[Dan True]

but what about missle fire...?

I also had a hard time swallowing this, but one must remember the system is designed for adventurers... so even though the system allows it, you should't think of it as made to a longbow shot at a range of 150 m. Instead, most shots will be fired at point blank range at a maximum of 30 meters.

At that range, I think it's reasonable that the shot is made more specifically at openings. If the target is aware of the shot, you can think of it as two people standing 20 meters from each other, one with a bow the other perhaps with a shield of with the ability to dodge. The guy doing the dodging should do it at the same moment the shooter looses the arrow, else the shooter will be able to simply wait a second and then shoot at the target on the ground instead (a failed evade).

On the other hand, the guy with the bow should shoot at a time when the target is not ready to evade, or when he has already spent his chance. Similarly, if he has a shield the archer must feint to make the target move his shield to another point than where he is aiming.

To make it make sense, try thinking of it as you throwing a rock at a target 5 meters away. There's a lot more to it than simply throwing, if you want to hit him. Especially if he has a large shield in front of him.

- Dan

Edit: This is my way of rationalising ranged combat. But I cannot deny that I agree that the system is not entirely well suited for ranged combat.

 

[RosenMcStern]

but what about missle fire...?

Missile CMs should be somehow different from melee ones, you are correct.

Unfortunately time was a little limited, I suppose Loz and Pete could have devised something more accurate in a longer timeframe. But I am still very happy about how RQII handles melee, and this makes me willing to accept some "weirdness" in ranged combat.

 

[taxboy]

but what about missle fire...?

Missile CMs should be somehow different from melee ones, you are correct.

Unfortunately time was a little limited, I suppose Loz and Pete could have devised something more accurate in a longer timeframe. But I am still very happy about how RQII handles melee, and this makes me willing to accept some "weirdness" in ranged combat.

Hi there - totally agree - MRQ2 is by far my favourite fantasy combat system but I am hoping a few elements could be tweaked in the rebirth.

Unarmed combat and missile combat would be cool things to revisit.

Played HERO for years - that was pretty good but hate all things D & D, armour class and scaling hit points - don't get me started!!

 

[DamonJynx]

Leaving all tactical decision except what skill to roll to _after_ you have rolled is a design technique. It is known as "fortune in the middle" among rpg theoreticians. It means that you describe the result of your action as a function of how well you roll (possibly using Hero Points to re-roll), instead of modifying the success chances according to the tactics you choose.

Cool. I didn't know there was actually a term for it! This type of decision making is perfect in a game where foes actually react to stuff rather than standing around zombie-like while the party wails on them until it's their turn to act like other game systems. Shows you how little I know about a game design, but I do know what I like and I like this.

Personally, I don't have a problem with Choose Location for missile attacks. Skilled archers should be able to hit where they aim!

 

[Aquarium_Drinker]

No, you can choose location, but before i hit - i.e. aim for a groin - i found most people protect it well - but it was it affected how hard it was to hit not choose location afterwards!

I see. There is a point that is not clear to you, here.

Leaving all tactical decision except what skill to roll to _after_ you have rolled is a design technique. It is known as "fortune in the middle" among rpg theoreticians. It means that you describe the result of your action as a function of how well you roll (possibly using Hero Points to re-roll), instead of modifying the success chances according to the tactics you choose.

Believe it or not, this design technique is more realistic and greatly speeds up combat. If the alternative (calling a shot affects your chances to hit) sounds more sensible to you, it is just because most other games use it.

Having played "Riddle of Steel", I really like the way RuneQuest II handles combat. I like that the skill of the character, rather than the player determining combat success, with the CAs still allowing the player to make the meaningful tactical decisions.

I like RQII much more than the other D100 systems as well as it allows for more choices in combat without changing the system all that much.

I am definitely in the RAW camp for the "choose location" CA.

 

[HalfOrc HalfBiscuit]

If anyone is having a really hard time swallowing the concept of calling the CMs after the dice have fallen, you could require that an attacker state before the dice are rolled the CM that they wish to apply should they get a sufficient degree of success. This would better simulate the process of "I'm aiming for his head, but if I can't hit that I'll hit anywhere I can!" This would (slightly) slow down play however.

You would also have to decide whether you want to apply the same to defensive CMs and whether you require the player to nominate upfront more than one CM in case he succeeds by more than one level of success. Both of which would slow play down further.[/b]

 

[DamonJynx]

If anyone is having a really hard time swallowing the concept of calling the CMs after the dice have fallen, you could require that an attacker state before the dice are rolled the CM that they wish to apply should they get a sufficient degree of success. This would better simulate the process of "I'm aiming for his head, but if I can't hit that I'll hit anywhere I can!" This would (slightly) slow down play however.

You would also have to decide whether you want to apply the same to defensive CMs and whether you require the player to nominate upfront more than one CM in case he succeeds by more than one level of success. Both of which would slow play down further.

That's a simple, yet effective solution.

 

[sdavies2720]

True, but rare in my experience. Most of our CM's are generated from a success/fail or critical/fail rather than a critical/success which is what you describe above. Indeed in that circumstance, bypass parry or trip would be much better as all the rest are fairly useless.

Ah. Must be difference in campaign level -- mine was a convert from RQ3, and characters were essential RuneLord level. Fails rarely happen.

 

[Pruneau]

My players tend to choose location rather often, but I never found that a real issue: whether an enemy is dismembered, hacked in two or beheaded makes little difference to the actual combat, the victim is out of it one way or the other. Plus, I tend to have lots of heavier head armor, it just seems logical to me that goblins or trollkins that can afford it wear a helmet of some kind. If they have any more money, a hauberk is the next item they obtain. So often, the limbs are the least armored, and choose location, if used, often targets the right arm. Plus, most of the time the party needs a survivor for questioning.

On a side note, I have also found, since I embraced the RQ II RAW, that more concern about tactical precision actually decreases the enjoyment. In the beginning we constantly discussed about movement, charging, and we played with a measuring tape measuring every single move, arguing about centimeters.

Since we stopped doing that, the fights flow a lot more, in a more relaxed atmos, and we are having more fun.